Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went on the
offensive against media criticism of the Pentagon's use of an
independent contractor to place positive articles in the Iraqi
press. "That story has been pounded in the media. It is very
attractive for the media because it is about the media, and they
like that. But we don't know what the facts are yet," Mr. Rumfeld
said speaking at Johns Hopkins University.

Now, pleading ignorance of the facts is not a good line of
argument for Mr. Rumsfeld, who is both responsible for and highly
involved in the U.S. military's information strategy in Iraq. Yet,
it is certainly fair to say that the American media's reaction to
the news has been knee-jerk and lacking in context. At least, we
should have a better understanding of the extent and nature of the
Pentagon's information campaign, before leaping to judgment.

Consider The Washington Post editorial of Dec. 2 on the subject.
"Saying it was predictable makes it no less loathsome and damaging
to find that the Bush administration has treated the Iraqi press,
the Iraqi people and the very idea of Iraqi democracy with even
greater contempt." Such offended purity on display.

The news about the Washington-based Lincoln Group's contract with
the Pentagon to place positive articles in the Iraqi media was
first published in the L.A. Times on Nov. 30. It is an important
story, and it does merit far more reporting. But is also merits
perspective and respect for the difficulty of presenting the U.S.
government's point of view in the present free-wheeling, unstable,
myth-ridden media environment of Iraq.

One cluster of questions focuses on the content of the articles
being placed. If it is found on investigation, and the Senate has
already started one such, that the Pentagon is deliberately
spreading disinformation in the Iraqi media, this has got to stop
and the parties responsible for the policy and its execution held
to account.

Yet, according to the L.A. Times report that is not what is
happening. "Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press
as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent
journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops,
denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led effort to rebuild the
country."

"Though they are basically factual [italics added], they
present only one side of events and not information that might
reflect poorly on U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said."

In other words, the problem allegedly is one-sidedness, not
disinformation. This point is crucial, and often ignored or
outright misrepresented in the debate here. "How long will it be
before the Lincoln's Group's fabrications [italics added]
insinuate themselves into the columns of the American press?" wrote
Tim Rutten in the L.A. Times Dec. 3 in direct contradiction of his
own paper's news story.

Secondly, how are these articles being placed? Key is whether the
articles are marked clearly as advertising, which they should be,
and whether employees of the Lincoln Group are misrepresenting
themselves. Remember, it is a well-established practice in the
United States for a government or non-profit to pay for placing an
opinion article editorial in a newspaper. It is called advocacy
advertising. The American Federation of Teachers, for instance, ran
a paid editorial in the Sunday New York Times "Week in Review"
section every week for years on end. Iraq's shoe-string media seem
only too happy to take the money. One pragmatic editor told the
L.A. Times, if he had know the stories were from the U.S.
government, he would have "charged much, much more."

A third question is whether the Pentagon should be doing this?
Ideally not, but the lack of a public diplomacy and communications
strategy coming out the State Department drove the Pentagon a while
ago to step up its own efforts. The Lincoln Group has also produced
a public service campaign on Iraqi television warning against
roadside bombs, as well as a campaign designed to encourage Sunni
Muslim to vote in the constitutional referendum, both of which seem
entirely appropriate.

And finally, how does the U.S. government best get the message out
about progress being made in Iraq? Relying exclusively on the
burgeoning free media in Iraq, which American resources are also
helping to build, would certainly be far better, but is probably
not realistic at this point. More is needed. Why, it is hard enough
getting any positive or just even-handed news from Iraq out of the
U.S. media itself.

Helle Dale is
director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Studies at the Heritage Foundation.